On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> Is an icon simpler than terse text? Yes.
Is it better? No.
> And it is seen across more
> industries than just the computer industry. Sewing machines now come with
> buttons with images representing the type of stitch rather than using text.
Because it solves localisation. At work, one printer has two colored LEDs and
two buttons with symbols. The LEDs can blink, go on and off, yet almost
always we need the manual to find out what the bugger wants. The older
printer with the LCD-textdisplay is always pretty clear about what he
needs ....
> Cars come with idiot lights that have pictures rather than 'service engine
> soon' (which is itself an over simplification of a problem with the car
> rather than an indication of what the problem is).
"Service engine soon - at our contract dealer or all guaranties are
void ...."
> We all know a red light
> means stop, a green light means go, and the yellow light means speed up
> because you're about to get pinned by the red light ;-) We are beings
> designed to work naturally from symbols, signs, and icons; not terse textual
> messages.
Yes, but most people *understand* the reasoning behind the traffic light
(as you prove with the yellow light). Those people who like GUIs because
they simplify things do _not_ understand what happens behind it. This is
why symbols and analogies are not good and dangerous in this case. Most
errors of inexperienced users can be explained by this. And if you
really understood the concepts many of the advantages of GUIs are gone -
they are still useful in certain scenarios, but they will not kill the
commandline in a looong time.
>
> > You are implying here that Linux's ultimate goal is to replace Windows. I
> > do
> > not agree here. I think the two can coexist just fine. Linux for those
> > end-users curious enough to go deeper into their computer's innards, and
> > Windows for those that want it to 'just work' (innasmuch as windows
> > works... :P) without having to learn anything about how it works. The
> > server
> > market is of course a different matter, but we're talking about desktop,
> > right.
>
> That's the wrong assumption.
>
> Basically to say "Linux is ready for the desktop" is in kin to saying that
> "Linux is easier to use than windows so it can supplant the current
> installation base"; I don't think anyone here can say that with any
> sincerity.
a) Concider linux to become more common in the workplace.
b) A preinstalled SuSE is far more "desktop-ready" than Windows for a
typical technophobic user (most are) who never even conciders to buy
a hardware upgrade - prizes are so low nowadays, people just replace
complete machines.
c) There is just one blocker left: games. But for the "just works" crowd
a game console is a tempting concept ...
> Most folks, where work is concerned, expect to have the computer 'just
> work'. Your boss wants you to show up at 8 am and be productive for 8
> hours, not spend time figuring out the innards (unless that, of course, is
> what you're paid to do ;-)
Thats exactly what he will get with one good linux admin and locked-down
clients for everybody else.
> That's the one thing that windows, I hate to say, has - it just works.
No it doesnt. At least in my experience: at work there is always 10-20%
overhead to fix things on windows. I guess (but dont know from
experience) Apples might be much better, but windows is at least as
maintanance-heavy as linux on a single machine. But linux gets easier
with every machine more, while windows does not.
> I don't want to see linux/gentoo/freebsd/whatever go in that direction
> either. I'm happy with my gentoo systems and don't want to see them
> bastardized to become more like windows.
>
> My argument, however, was to be 'ready for the desktop,' to supplant
> windows, requires that they do so.
Other distros do. A Distro based on gentoo, which is originaly a metadistro
(a tool to built a distro) might certainly do that too.Greetings, BjÃrn -- BjÃrn Michaelsen pub 1024D/C9E5A256 2003-01-21 BjÃrn Michaelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key fingerprint = D649 8C78 1CB1 23CF 5CCF CA1A C1B5 BBEC C9E5 A256
pgp06dy2d3pvu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
